2018 (4) TMI 76 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specifying the limb under which penalty is being imposed whether for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income - Held that - As notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not specific as it did not mention specifically as to which limb penalty under section 271(1)(c) is imposed upon the assessee by the Assessing Officer. Notice for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act issued in the case of the assessee is bad in law invalid and therefore liable to be quashed. We therefore set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) without specifying the limb.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-II, Kanpur dated 1/3/2017, challenging the imposition of a penalty of ?5,00,000 under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The appellant contended that the penalty was unjust as there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The primary grievance was the lack of specificity in the penalty imposition regarding the limb under which it was imposed, whether for inaccurate particulars or income concealment.

The appellant, a Society engaged in spice manufacturing, claimed exemption under section 10(23B) of the Act, granted until assessment year 2010-11. In the relevant year, the appellant applied for renewal of exemption certificate from KVIC, pending which the claimed benefit was denied by the Assessing Officer. The AO treated the denial as mala fide, alleging income concealment and inaccurate particulars, leading to the penalty imposition.

Before the ld. CIT(A), the appellant reiterated arguments made before the AO, but the penalty was upheld. On appeal, the appellant argued that the penalty notice lacked specificity regarding the charge for penalty imposition. Citing relevant case law, the appellant emphasized the need for a clear and unambiguous charge for penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

The Tribunal, after reviewing the case record, concurred with the appellant's argument. It found the penalty notice deficient as it did not specify the limb under which the penalty was imposed. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that such a notice was invalid and ordered the deletion of the penalty imposed by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was deleted.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of a clear and specific charge for penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, highlighting the need for unambiguous communication in penalty notices to ensure validity and fairness in penalty proceedings.